11-13-12 So far, I haven’t seen anyone use much of anything …

Comment on LSU graduate comments on LSU conflict by Lydian Belknap.


So far, I haven’t seen anyone use much of anything in this discussion except the “scientific” views on the subject. I think it is time for God to have a few words to say.

Now I lay no claims to being a great Biblical expositor. I am just a very old lady that loves God and believes every word of the wonderful Book He has given us. I have no question but there are many out there who know far more than I do. But since, so far, I haven’t seen any comments pointing out what the God-inspired prophets have written I’m going to try to do my best to fill in the gap. I’ll try to keep my comments as brief as possible and still make the point. (And I‘ve used other sources (not just my own old brain for my information but haven’t given credit because most of my comments from other sources are “a little here and a little there” and it would be confusing to try to give credits on every comment I make.)

First, let’s talk about Tyre. Probably the vast majority of our readers never heard of it but it was a very important city in Bible times. For 2,000 years Tyre grew in importance till she was the mistress of the sea and the commercial center of the world. She was beautiful, she was rich and she was very “learned.” She was the maritime equivalent of Babylon when Babylon was at the height of her glory under King Nebuchadnezzar. Anyone looking at her when Ezekiel prophesied her utter destruction would have considered him crazy and his prophecy doomed to failure.

Here is what Ezekiel said: “They shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God: . . . they shall lay thy stones AND thy timber AND thy dust in the midst of the water . . . And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD (Ezekiel 26:4, 12 ,14).

The destruction of Tyre could have been understandable. However, the prophecy that said Tyre would be thrown into the midst of the sea, and its former location be scraped like the top of a rock and thrown in with? That sounded flat out unreasonable! Yet both of these prophecies were fulfilled–although centuries apart.

Not too long after the prophecies were given Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon besieged the city and conquered it. The inhabitants of Tyre, however, escaped to a nearby island. Nebuchadnezzar then reduced the city to ruins and for two and-a-half centuries, these ruins were a mute contradiction of what the Bible said about all of its ruins being cast into the sea and the very dust of the ground being thrown into the sea also . Obviously this challenged the accuracy of the prophecy and made the skeptics laugh.

Then, long after Nebuchadnezzar’s siege, Alexander the Great came along. He conquered the Medo-Persian empire, then turned his eyes toward the “new” city of Tyre which resisted his onslaught. Alexander then ordered his troops to build a causeway to the island by throwing the ancient ruins of mainland Tyre into the midst of the sea, and using even the dust to create a way for his troops! Then the complete prophecy that Tyre would be thrown into the midst of the sea was also fulfilled! You notice that God did not say that both things would happen at the same time–just that they would happen. In God’s own good time the prophecy reached it’s full fulfillment!

Further, God said it would never be rebuilt. Since many ancient cities have been rebuilt there seems to be no reason for Tyre not to be rebuilt–after, all it is in a very desirable location. If skeptics want to disprove the Bible it really wouldn’t take a lot of money from a few wealthy people to build at least a small city there. (One dollar from every skeptic would easily do it) and so forever disprove God’s ability to foretell the future. But it hasn’t been done–and it never will be! (And fishermen still dry their nets there just as the prophecy said they would!)

Surely the God of the Bible still shows His power, His wisdom and His foreknowledge!


Lydian Belknap Also Commented

LSU graduate comments on LSU conflict

A short while back a dear friend sent me an email with lots of beautiful pictures showing a garden (somehow I lost the site) in which every bush had been transformed into a bird, an animal–even a child. It was absolutely magnificent!

As I looked at one of the amazing displays I started wondering what would happen if I was actually in that garden and approached a group of people who were also enjoying the beauty it held. And if after a few moments I said something like this:

“This is so beautiful–and to think Nature did it all on her own! It is truly amazing of what she can do if people will just back off and let her do her own thing.”

What would their reaction have been? (I suspect they would have thought I was somewhat deranged and slowly backed away and left before I became violent!)

Obviously that garden had a lot of very talented hands (and minds) behind all of that beauty and I suspect they were there every day clipping away the stray twigs and leaves that started appearing here and there.)

But is my disbelief in evolution unreasonable, and show my lack of knowledge (as some scientists contend), when I question that this beautiful world just “evolved” from chaos with no intelligent mind behind it? Why can’t we see it happening today? Who turned off the switch? And why?

I’m not a scientist but if this isn’t a case of “The Emperor Has No Clothes” I don’t know what one would be. We are often overwhelmed with the many wonderful and useful things humans have come up with that makes our lives more livable but every new invention or other things ALWAYS have a creative mind behind them. Why is it so difficult to recognize that the wonderful world we live in HAD to have an intelligent mind behind it? What ever happened to common sense?


LSU graduate comments on LSU conflict


Ron, I posted my reply at the bottom of the preceeding section of this line of discussion. Please look for it there.

After again reading what you wrote in the points you are making here I can’t help but wonder whether or not you have actually taken part in any experiments or “digs” that are you basing your convictions on or just what you have read or heard?

2. Have you really studied your Bible enough to truly know the God of the Bible?

3. Have you thoughtfully and prayerfully looked at the prophecies God has given us about things that didn’t actually take place ’till decades, or even centuries, later and have proven to be completely correct in every detail? If you haven’t how can you honestly evaluate the things mainstream scientists are flooding the world with?

I’m not trying to be critical of you or anyone else but I just can’t help wondering about some of these things. After all, from my perspective, the God of the Bible has proven over and over by His foreknowledge of the future and that He really can be trusted. (And, on the other hand, much human wisdom in almost–if not all–areas has repeatedly had to “eat it’s own words” as time proves them wrong.)


LSU graduate comments on LSU conflict
When Man’s wisdom–however intelligent it may sound, or how many “letters” there are behind someone’s name (or even a lot of “someones”) that proclaim it–if it contradicts a single plain “Thus saith the Lord” it is NOT “present truth!” however much it may appeal to the liberal minds of millions who may wish an easier way to get to heaven.

I fear we are a long way from being the “people of the Book” we once were! But, guess what!–God knew this would happen and He called the last of the seven churches “Laodicea.” Truly, we are saying, “I am rich…and have need of nothing.” (After all, folks didn’t have the brilliant scientists such as we have today when You told Moses–and even our Adventist pioneers
–You did it is six literal days and rested the seventh!)

I am NOT against true science or scientists! There definitely is a real place for it (and them) and I truly believe it is “God given.” I have a LOT of respect for true science and true scientists but when someone–anyone–goes against a plain “Thus saith the Lord” they lose me. (Not that these folks really care if a very “ignorant”, very “old lady” doesn’t believe them!) But God does and that’s enough for me!

As Bob said–“All have free will. To each his own.” I agree! (But I still tremble for those who believe ideas contrary to what God says–even if it comes from the mouth of a renowned scientist, an “Adventist” teacher or an “Adventist” preacher. (Please forgive me if I have misunderstood or misjudged anyone.)

Recent Comments by Lydian Belknap

A New Endowment Program for Adventist Education
So here I sit–a “very old lady”–totally confused and not having a clue as to whether to donate or not–or where to donate if I should.

As things stand now I think I will just continue putting my own little amount to my current “missionary out reach” of buying “Steps to Christ” and “Who Do You Think You Are?” and passing them on to the clerks in the stores where I shop or other people I meet that I think would like them.

If and when you folks decide on what, how and where to help in this very worthy project let me know and I’ll do what I can then.

A New Endowment Program for Adventist Education
I just noticed that there is such a program in place in northern California but I would want one that is nation wide. After all, if our kids aren’t already in danger here in the southern union also (as well the rest of the US) it’s most likely only a short matter of time till they will be.

A New Endowment Program for Adventist Education
I am far from a wealthy person who could and gladly would donate large sums of money to such a program but I could and would gladly donate some if such assurances were solidly in place. I’m sure there are many “old folks” like me “out there” who feel the same way. (Is there already such a program in place? If so please post all needed information.)

The God of the Gaps
While browsing my rather voluminous file of articles to “save” I ran across this jewel—I think it is worth saving and thinking about–especially the last statement by Darwin himself:
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

While Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy — a plausible mechanism called “natural selection.” Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – Slowly But Surely…

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, “…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.” [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an “irreducibly complex system”. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called “the hammer,” a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we’ve made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist

Michael Denton wrote, “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.” [5]

And we don’t need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin’s day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” [6]

1. Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” 1859, p. 162.
2. Ibid. p. 158.
3. Michael Behe, “Darwin’s Black Box,” 1996.
4. “Unlocking the Mystery of Life,” documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.
5. Michael Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” 1986, p. 250.
6. Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” 1859, p. 155.

I don’t think Sean could have said it better himself!

Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation
Sean, I guess I “bit off more than I can chew” when I subscribed to some of your other options.
All I can handle is the ^way it used to be”–like this column still is. Please put me back to this mode of information and I will be very happy. Thanks.